A&H

Everton v Arsenal

I digress... I went to a big match last year to watch my adopted country's premier flagsman, who has since been on Champions League duty a couple of times. We don't get big crowds but there were maybe 2-3000 in the capital city stadium's main stand and he was on the line in front.

Second half and he flagged a foul throw. Monumental jeers. He inched onto the touch line and got up on tip toes so his toes were on the field and gave the slightest hint of a glance at the grandstand. Instant calm.

(Later in that game he flagged a 96th minute penalty (winner) for a foul close to the goal line-goal area intersection on his diagonal that later replays showed was bang on.)

Awe, respect etc. And reminds me that we can follow the LotG and not spoil the beautiful game but we need b***s of steel and the experience, intelligence and wit to sell difficult decisions (which I wish I had!).
 
The Referee Store
Never 'sold' a 'difficult' decision because they were easy, just what I saw...keep it simple, see it, give it, move on.
 
Peter Grove said:
No, it couldn't. The law is perfectly clear, both grammatically and logically. As long as part of each foot is either on the touchline, or on the ground outside the touchline, the foot positioning is legal. There is no way to read it as meaning that no part of the foot can be on the field of play.
Click to expand...
Oh, Spanked.... 100 lines @PinnerPaul
 
PinnerPaul said:
Couldn't be bothered to reply, but clearly factually incorrect as if I read the law that way it CAN be interpreted that way!
Click to expand...

I guess in the world of "alternate facts" anything is possible . . . "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" . . .
 
PinnerPaul said:
Couldn't be bothered to reply, but clearly factually incorrect as if I read the law that way it CAN be interpreted that way!
Click to expand...
Well yes, but only in the same way that if somebody says, "It is night," some other person could 'interpret' that as meaning that it is, in fact day.

Let's take a practical example of the most extreme case. A player taking a throw-in stands with almost all of both feet completely on the field of play. Only a small part of each foot is on the line (the heels). The player has clearly and indisputably complied with the requirement to have a part of each foot either on the line, or on the ground outside the line. There is no way the wording of the law can be interpreted as meaning that this foot positioning is illegal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top